By Staff
I can't find a copy of the New Yorker anywhere. Once news broke that the always respected publication had put a controversial – and that's putting it mildly – cartoon on its cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as unpatriotic, I went looking for one.
The cover, if you haven't seen it, show's the presidential hopeful couple standing in the oval office, Michelle in military garb, a machine gun slung over her shoulder "fist bumping" her husband, Barack, dressed in what has been described as traditional Islamic clothing. Off to the side, a framed portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs over the mantel and an American flag burns in the fireplace.
The New Yorker came under heavy fire for the cover titled, "The Politics of Fear." Critics said it crossed the line, depicting the Obamas as terrorists. And those critics were not from Obama's party affiliation alone.
Even his opponent, Senator John McCain found that the cover was inappropriate.
It was just the latest in a variety of attacks made on the Illinois senator who has unarguably made history in his bid for the presidency. But people at The New Yorker say that is precisely the point.
To look at it their way, the editorial cartoon is a depiction of every criticism and attack made on the Obamas – amplified through satire. Obama has been accused of being a closet Muslim, his wife's personality has been criticized and his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ is a permanent dent in his campaign.
And the thing is … the people at The New Yorker are right … sort of.
The cartoon does do just what they say. If you are one of those who believes the muckraking then yes, you most likely see Obama as a threat to patriotism, his wife as a threat to the White House and worry that any minute now – the shoe is going to drop and the guy will be exposed as a crook.
With context, Obama supporters may find the cover less offensive. MediaCurves.com, a service of HCD Research Inc. reported that while a majority of Republicans and Independents believed the cover was not offensive, Democrats were only more receptive of it after they were given the artist's reasoning of the portrait.
By the end of the week, talk of the cover has already gone back to the wonderfully fun and comfortable chatter of whose policy is better than whose…. But question may not be was the cover "sincere satire" or not. It may just be a question of whether or not America is underestimating its ability to, almost too quickly, convince itself that stereotyping and prejudice is a thing of the past. And the media may want to revisit the issue of its own influence. One could imagine the case might be similar had the cover attacked McCain's age or friendship with President Bush or Hillary Clinton's gender, had she won the nomination. Inside the issue, a lengthy article discusses Obama's roots. His rise in Illinois, his paths to the Senate and to the campaign trail. His journey to define himself and his principles. A closer look at the man behind the stigma, behind the satire.
The portrait did indeed portray the attacks and the accusations and the stigmas that have been hurled at the Obama campaign to an – all be it exaggerated – accurate degree. But it may have benefited from a little context, possibly appearing inside the magazine, rather than on the cover. On the other hand, it may ultimately give Obama another hurdle to rise above – something many would say he's been so successful at doing so far. On the other hand – the magazine sold out in stores. On the other hand, there remains the possibility people will misinterpret the portrait rather than consider it and base their perspectives on that misinterpretation.
So I guess that would mean that stigma and stereotype rest … in America's hands.